62 Comments:

As are single, especially younger and attractive, women. I believe it is fundamentally a control issue, and certain people and situations represent threats to that control. An unencumbered man is a dynamic living model of all that marriage is structured to eliminate.

And, in a lame attempt to be fair, part of the basis for this behavior may be archaic, a biological drive to maintain stability around the cave for the safety of the female and offspring while the male drive is pretty much the diametric opposite. Or not.

Jim asked, "What is it about single men that makes married women (never men!) interrogate us as to our continued bachelorhood and seeming refusal to 'settle down?'" [sic]

While I haven't encountered men engaging in the aforementioned interrogation either, I've more than once run into situations where men question the sexuality of a never married, middle aged, professional woman. It's as if the only conceivable reason she wouldn't be married is that she hates men.

I say this not to belittle Jim's frustration, but to suggest that this kind of pettiness may be endemic to the human condition but manifest in different ways. It's not about control, in my opinion. It's about being uncomfortable with people who don't fit within a narrow view of how life should be.

This type of questioning is so dependent on the nature and tone of the questions asked, that I would have been loath to give an answer at all, but I think there's another possibility (for many of these women): they're are simply curious about the circumstances because "Jim" is outside the norm.

Whereas men are curious about the physical world, women are curious about the social and emotional world. A man will pick up and study a two-headed turtle, where a woman will question a man as to why he would do that. Women are responsible for most of the social labeling throughout history, and need to question the outliers to determine how to catalog them.

Some people are nosy busybody nudgniks. If someone asks you a question that is too personal or is prying into your social life, an appropriate answer is, "That's none of your business". I've had 100% success with that response whether it is directed at married women, single men or coworkers. There will always be people that stick their nose where it doesn't belong.

It seems as if the implication of this man's concern is that marriage is an institution setup for women that men submit to. Otherwise, single women friends of his wife would be just as much of a threat to him. But they're not, because they're all colluding together how to get married while he and his buddies are doing the opposite.

I personally think monogomy is a scam. Human beings, through most of their existence, lived in small groups with pretty lax rules of sexual conduct. Children had parents, but were raised by collective groups.

I would like to say at this time, that the passing of Tony Snow is very sad to me. He was a great man. He had a very long fight against cancer, and lost that fight over the weekend. I wish to extend my condolences to his family.

At the same time I wish the Los Angeles Times and the AP employees who wrote the vicious things they wrote about this great man after his death, a very long and protracted, painful and frightening death. They are scum.

Without more information than what he gives it's hard to believe this is anything more than "I SO want to fix him up with someone". I've experienced so many married women in my life time that just can't resist the urge to play matchmaker. Heaven knows they did with me.

The difference, I suppose, is that I DID want to get married, so their prying and matchmaking were easier to take as "well-intentioned, if not entirely welcome". To someone who is NOT interested in getting married, and who has been enduring this much longer, it could be easier to assume a less magnanimous motive.

I'm more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Many women love a good, mushy love story. If they see a guy they think is interesting and marriagable material they can't resist the urge to bring about another love story.

Bachelorhood is the kiss of death for male authors/novelists, as I tried to explain to Richard 'Althouse' Cohen.

If you look at the bestsellers, and the male novelists that women read most....Nicholas Sparks, Chris Bohjalian......they are safely married.

Women aren't willing to read a novel written by a bachelor author, out floating around unattached. Of course, the bland and vapid genre of women's fiction is a strange one to begin with, but the only men who are allowed in, are those that are safely ensconced in marriage and family life.

That is an interesting phenomenon. When I meet a single man I don't make any assumptions about him. I readily admit I would like to see everyone happily married but that is none of my business. The few single men I know are either grad students or happy middle-aged bachelors. Their single status doesn't bother me, but then I am not insecure in my marriage. I suppose you are right, Helen, that some women feel threatened by single men.

As for your comment Maxine, wow, I never give a thought to the marital status of authors. Maybe that's related to my lack of interest in "women's fiction."

It's really very simple- a man who isn't married is usually someone who cannot be easily manipulated & can see right through women. Women simply have no interest or use for a man like this. Read this:http://loseloseprospect.blogspot.com/

I forgot to include the complete title- it's called 'For Men Marriage Is a Lose/Lose Prospect.'http://loseloseprospect.blogspot.com/

Helen,

I'm sure you covered this before, but I'm guessing I must have missed it or forgotten- when discussing issues about marriage, sex and relationships with the average American female, it's as if I'm talking to someone who isn't even from this planet. Why is it that you are not like this? What is it that sets you apart from the average female? Though you're article here is a little too 'cutesy' for my taste, at least you discuss male/female issues in a way that doesn't sound like you're on LSD (like the vast majority of women).

If you are not a policeman who pulled me for speeding, say, or your name is not at the bottom of my paycheck, or you are not a customer, then your opinion is of no consequence. Value, perhaps. But consequence, no. I have to say, I sure do like it like that.

I spent way too long a stretch of my life hooked to someone who was borderline, I found out much later.The freedom I now have is pretty damned wonderful. So, OK, I'm way off to one side basking in it. But I have earned it.

Well, I had another thought on this, a flashback from my own single past. Jim says he has "very mixed feeling about the notion of being married someday." Maybe he has become overly sensitive to the topic and any comment or question about his marital status seems sinister to him. When I was single in my 30's I was sensitive about my lack of a partner. Oh, office Christmas parties were hell. But I realized later I was just self-conscious about it. My problem, not others' bad behavior.

You're right Marbel. If people have a problem with one's marital status they probably will also have a problem with those who are married and don't have any kids. If people do have kids these same folk might have a problem with the number of kids. You won't win with them. Their inappropriate prying questions are a beacon to what is going on in their dysfunctional mind.

I have been asked by those of the opposite sex why I am not married. I tell them it is because of people like them. My response serves its purpose. They shut up and usually walk away and leave me alone.

As I said above, I don't care what they think (even if I meant it for another thread). So why would I want to hear it?

I had a good relationship with my father and learned that personal responsibility and independence was key to a successful life. I learned to respect people's individuality and have no desire to change others to be what I want or to have power over others. Most people, conscious or not, want others to be what they want, not what they are. I also spend many years as a psychologist actually listening to what men said about their situtations instead of projecting my own selfish interpretations or that of society onto their words. There are many more reasons than I have stated, but I will not bore you with the details.

That's propbably part of the cycle. More children are either born out of wedlock or have divorced parents than ever before. In both those situations, the vast majority of these children are raised by women, and the majority of these women have had bad experiences with men (usually the men that fathered the children). Then, given a woman's natural tendency to talk about anything and everything to her friend, neighbors, relatives, (sometimes even children), etc., the young ears probably grown up marinated in more negative than positive about men in general. Which is why women like Helen (who had good relationships with their father) are less likely to anti male than the growing percentage of the population that doesn't.

That isn't a criticism of all women (sad that must always be added as a disclaimer), but I definitely think that the increase in single parent homes (almost always the mother) contributes to negativity against men (some of it earned by fathers who abandoned, some of it concocted by mothers who won't take responsibilty).

I have a long way to go. I am as opinionated as they come, yet couldn't care less what others think, except for a very small number of people who happen to be blood relation, and call me dad.It took me years to develop that way of looking at things. Humor!

I do think that many people--men and women--have issues with their fathers, and hence try to rebel against everyone and everything that smacks of "paternalism." I agree with the reasons you stated for part of it, the shunning of men from families, or men leaving families for various reasons and children being left with only the mother's interpretation (often negative) of what happened. It is quite sad, in many ways. For those without a father often grow up with an existential angst that is hard to fill.

br549,

"Live and let live, Dr. Helen. Yet, you make it sound like magic....I am as opinionated as they come"

So am I, especially when it comes to other people trying to restrict my freedom or that of other people. Most people want control over others, whether that be over their sexuality, freedom of speech, or money. I think sometimes being opinionated is justified in response to people trying to run your life or trying to control you in some way that is done "for one's own good."

I can't remember the exact quote, but I believe it was Jane Austen who said something like, a young man in possession of a fortune is in need of a wife.

I think that cuts to the core of the match-making syndrome. When women, married women in particular, meet a single man and feel compelled to introduce him to their single girlfriends, it certainly isn't out of any concern for him. It's because they want her to have control over his money.

There's something to be said for that though. Marriage is a stabilizing force in society, and the best use of a man's income is arguably providing for his wife and children. So women feel compelled to attach single men to single women, because it's in the best interests of women to have the benefits and security of marriage. It's also admittedly in the best interests of men.

The problem these days, as has often been pointed out on this site, is with contemporary culture and the attitudes of women. Marriage law hasn't changed in over 600 years, but divorce laws have changed dramatically in the last 40, as has the culture and the attitudes of women, and for the worse I might add. Thus, for men today marriage is a high-risk gamble. For women it's a low-risk ticket to the bank.

I work in real estate, a business that is overwhelming dominated by women. 90% of brokers, agents, title closers are female. I go to board meetings and I'm surrounded by women, many of whom are married. And it's the same every time. "You haven't gotten married yet? I know someone . . ."

Sometimes I'll agree to meet their friends for lunch, not dinner. (Dinner implies dinner and . . . Lunch implies nothing more than a meeting.) At that lunch, we'll sit down and have a conversation, or try to anyway. It doesn't take very long, twenty minutes, for me to decide whether or not this woman is someone I might want to have a relationship with. A few carefully selected questions asked in an off-hand manner, see how she responds, and then I know. "I'm not going to raise children. I have a career!" Check, please.

The real problem comes later when the woman who introduced us interrogates me on why I'm not interested. "What's the matter with her? What's the matter with you?" This is what I try to avoid, because I don't explain myself.

But I'll tell you exactly what's the matter with her. It's her smug sense of superiority, her snide confrontational and condescending demeanor, and her unbelievable sense of entitlement, not to mention her complete lack of any sense of responsibility. She acts as though I have everything to gain by being married to her, when in reality she has far more to gain by being married to me. That's the problem right there. It's her abject refusal to acknowledge, much less admit, that she benefits a lot more from marriage than I do.

I don't need her. I'm financialy independent. I don't have any debt. I'm graduate educated, intelligent, successful. My family owns a corporation. When I'm done doing what I have to do, I'm going to retire with millions. I certainly don't need her income, so exactly what do I need her for?

Cooking? I've been cooking since I was eight, and I cook better than any woman I've ever met. And no one does the grocery shopping but me, because ingredient selection is the key to good food.

Cleaning? I clean my own mess, always have, always will.

Washing? I have my own washer/dryer, and I wash my own clothes. Besides, my suits and dress shirts are dry cleaned.

Sex? Well, I enjoy sex as much as the next guy, but I can get that anytime I want. Irregardless, I don't need sex to live. I need money to live. And I never have, never will pay money, certainly not 50%, for something I can get for a tequila shot.

The bottom line is this. What does she have to offer me? Not much. If she does not intend to accept her responsibilities without question for raising her children, nothing at all in fact.

I require a life partner, a helpmate and a mother for my children. I will not settle for anything less. Why should I?

I'm actually a university educated man & I know that I have said things on your blog in a very blunt fashion- but I have a horrendous situation with my ex-wife and children & I am far beyond worrying if I sound 'academic' enough here. Academic essays & pontifications generally go nowhere- especially today & especially in the area of men's rights.

I had a two year relationship with a woman (who is not my ex-wife) who was a therapist- in fact I'm only attracted to intelligent/university educated women.. & yes, she was more understanding of my plight as a man in today's society, but the double edged sword I have found time and again is that well educated women are too 'steely' & whenever you try to work through problems/argue they use psychology and make the argument circular- just a more sophisticated way of doing what virtually all women do- never taking accountability for anythng.. like some kind of untouchable- another key reason for the ridiculous divorce rate. I would certainly hope you are not this way.

But what it seems like- is that from the overall implication, is that the only way a woman can possibly understand what it is like for men today is to be a therapist or be some other highly unusual position.

I'm happy that you had a good relationship with your father, & it makes perfect sense- but I only see one problem with what you said.. (& it's pivitol) here:

"I had a good relationship with my father and learned that personal responsibility and independence was key to a successful life."

Don't you mean, "I had a good relationship with my father and learned FROM HIM that personal responsibility and independence was key to a successful life..?"

Was that an unconsicous slip indicating a reluntance to acknowledge a man's superiority in the area of values and the only you learn them is from him?

And as a therapist, I know you realize the same as I do (as well as most men)- looking around in society today that women are virtually socially retarded- the complete opposite of everything popular culture portrays. Sure, I meet a lot of 'impulsive' men, but men are proactive, so whatever they do wrong draws more attention, but the only way I see they are 'stupid' is in understanding women- (but most women are socially retarted- so what difference does it make?) not in basic social intelligence. I understand women only too well now that I'm older.. & I wish I didn't.

Women are only concerned with 'decorum,' And the only way they are going to learn how to be a decent person is from.. a man. Not just from a father, but from a husband as well. This is the extreme, absolute opposite of everything we are force fed today ... it's virtually heresy. Do you agree?

I did not necessarily learn independence and personal reponsibility specifically from my father but from other aspects of my life and situations that I dealt with. I have no reluctance to admit where I learned something nor do I think that personal responsibility is learned only from males, women, have this trait too but I acknowledge that it is seen less frequently in women.

That said, no, I don't think women are just concerned with decorum and that the only way to learn to be decent comes from a man. We are all human with different traits and some human beings are decent and moral and others are not. I think that one can learn morality in a number of ways, through a mentor, teacher, family member etc. and they may be men or women. I am sorry to hear about the horrendous situation with your ex and your children. But, I hope that you will not allow that bad experience to color all those that come after it.

The present tense of that sentence seems to be in question, and the source of a lot of the discomfort on the topic.

reality2008's bizarre overstatements aside (sorry dude, but while I sympathize more than I intend to explain, you gotta overreact less if you don't want to have misnamed yourself), it really is a long-running issue. I dont' get the sense that the answer has really been elucidated yet, though I'm not likely to be the one to fix that either.

Consider marbel's parties: single men are asked why they are single; single women ask themselves. A lot of women do seem actually, honestly offended by the fact of bachelors, and it's really hard to tell whether it's because bachelorhood is unfair to the poor lad or because a man choosing to not bother getting hitched is evidence of some sort of moral failure. It's a known fact (presented as humor) that the best way to keep women from hitting on you is to take off your wedding ring. On and on it goes, and little of it makes a lick of sense.

There are so many possible answers out there, and most of them probably have some validity; but when enormously different reasons lead to the same action, you have to question what the underlying issue really is... which, I think, is why the correspondent who asked the question sparking the article began with a host of caveats, to head off the usual answers which did not match.

Wow.. you learned 'something..' That's really sad, because I learned everything I know about the world from my father along with how to be independent & accountable, and it wasn't because he was 'special' he was strictly average in alot of ways- it was because he was a man. I've never learned anything useful from a woman- including my mother.

"I acknowledge that it is seen less frequently in women."

I've never met a woman in 45 years that was accountable for her actions. I have never heard a woman say, "I was wrong and I take full responsibility and I will change."

"We are all human with different traits and some human beings are decent and moral and others are not."

That's a condescending, dismissive statement, as if you are explaining the basics of humanity to a simpleton, and that's insulting.

No, we all have different traits, different personalites- some moral, some not, AND there are vast gender differences... it's three dimesional, not two dimensional.

"reality2008's bizarre overstatements aside (sorry dude... you gotta overreact less if you don't want to have misnamed yourself)"

I didn't 'overreact' to anything- that's not even the appropriate word for anything I've said here. Plus, I'll let you know when I need your approval (& make sure to hold your breath until then). Here's some advice- anyone who uses the word 'dude' is automatically considered a goof in educated circles and not taken seriously. Keep trying, and maybe one day you'll have educated friends too.

"I dont' get the sense that the answer has really been elucidated yet.."

Elucidated? Who uses that word? Why didn't you just use the word 'clarify?' And you're calling me 'bizarre?' Well educated people don't go out of there way to use arcane words to try to impress... they do that with actual, original ideas. Try it sometime.

I've noticed that many people have trouble accepting the idea that many men (and women) subject consideration of marriage and kids to the same kind of opportunity cost analysis that they do in considering any other life decision.

The tone I notice here and else where is the notion that people should somehow be "browbeaten" into marriage and kids whether they want it or not.

Don't worry, I'm not going to bother you anymore- I was testing you, and unfortunately you failed. I was looking under the hood to see if you truly were 'different' and sadly, I must say, there is hardly a splinter of difference- you have all of the earmarks and attitudes typical of all the rest (to my great disappoint I might add- I was desperately wanting you to pass) that only a man with low self esteem would find appealing.

Why? Why was I testing you? I found this the other day & I didn't want to accept it as true:

"I've noticed in the past two years or so, a lot of "conservative" or "traditional" women writing books about misandry in American culture.

While this is well and good, and strategically men should use these women to their advantage in their men's rights advocacy, one should question why now, after 20 or so years of men saying the same thing, these women start to be "advocates" for men's rights.

They did not before, as they were feminists themselves to some degree taking advantage of women's liberation and the traditional benefits offered to them by men and still do to date, but now, these "conservative" or "traditional" women have sons and see the misandry that their sons face in the anti-male culture of America. It could also be they have daughters as well who are fast becoming "liberated" as promiscuous tarts laden with STD's, or just as large as whales as "big" has become "beautiful" - well, only to the Oprahified masses.

It is self-serving at its finest. These women are looking after their progeny first, not men's rights or men in general, it just happens to work for them in order to protect and secure the best for their progeny and ultimately for themselves by having a secure society to live in on the backs of men - who they have seriously under appreciated to say the least in the company of the most radical man-hating feminists - and are now in damage control mode with such books on misandry through their realization of "Oh no!, the men have left the building!" "Who will maintain it now!" "Where did my slaves go!"

The writing is on the wall, a generation of young men going their own way, being free and independent from the traditional economic slavery to women, and well, these "conservative" or "traditional" women can't have that!

So they write these books with false sincerity to men to kiss and make up, however, it is not that easy. Maybe the NiceGuy will compromise with these "conservative" or "traditional" women, as he has always compromised throughout history, wanting the security of a wife to fit into "society" as his mind has constructed it to be, and surrendering his liberty as a man to chart his own destiny - but we know the end of such - just go to a big box retail store, and behold the shells of men that walk the aisles with these "conservative" or "traditional" whales...err...I mean, women. Now, on the contrary, the hardened, indifferent man will laugh and continue in his grand pursuits in life giving no time to such "conservative" or "traditional" women that he may encounter. His memory does not fade that quickly,

Somehow, I have no doubt that no matter how I answered your questions, I would have "failed" your "test," whatever that means. I tried to reach out to you, you slapped me down, and I think that makes you feel good about yourself in some way. Fine, it's your funeral.

Wow, reality2008 you are showing yourself to be a bit of a horse’s ass, is that intentional? Nothing was said to you to elicit the responses you gave to helen or peregrine John, not that they need me to stand up for either of them but a man (gentle or otherwise) does not countenance rudeness in public. You say you learned everything from your father, apparently he did not teach you not to be snarky. You might have learned that from your mother if you had paid attention better.

You say that you “never met a woman in 45 years that was accountable for her actions”. Never met one single unwed mother raising a child alone? Never met one single person of the female persuasion that said “I am wrong and I am sorry”? Really? Now who is being the simpleton?

I am a man though not university educated and I have been known to be blunt myself and even I, as “uneducated” as I am can see the difference between being blunt and being rude. If you are not careful, you will suffocate in that cloak of self righteousness that you wear so tightly.

"Somehow, I have no doubt that no matter how I answered your questions.."

Again, very insulting- if you want to know the answers I was looking for, here's an example of a woman who passes the test. http://equalbutdifferent.blogspot.com/

"test," whatever that means."

Here the defintion of he word 'test.'

"To put to the proof; to prove the truth, genuineness, or quality of by experiment, or by some principle or standard; to try; as, to test the soundness of a principle; to test the validity of an argument."

I don't even think you realize that by completely avoiding mentioning the article, that that means you've just admitted it's true by default. (ouch)

"I tried to reach out to you, you slapped me down, and I think that makes you feel good about yourself in some way.

Feel good about myself for 'slapping you down?' Wha...? Sorry, I'm not into female think.And you tried to 'reach out' to me? How? By saying that you're sorry about my situation with my ex-wife & you hope I don't see other women the same way? That's not 'reaching out,' that's just simply being polite- I say that every day in my line of work, "sorry your husband has cancer, etc." So I'm supposed to feel 'grateful' that you're polite as opposed to heartless or impolite? As if I should be grateful for some bread crumbs? It's clear we have some very, very, very, very different standards here.

Alright, I've stopped laughing enough to type again... but the good Doctor and some gentlemen beat me to it: I tried to reach out to you, you slapped me down, and I think that makes you feel good about yourself in some way.

Misnamed and misanthropic, "reality2008" is now filed with the trolls, skipped without glance.

"I just visited some of the web sites listed on your blogger.com page.

Question: Is Ed Gein your hero?"

The blog is half, what is called 'satirical.' You might want to look that word up so get up to speed.

If you associate a discussion of all the pitfalls of marriage for men, the problems with the modern American female, and the horrendous state of the family court system with Ed Gein tells me alot about YOU.

You can't say that every time you drink and drive you are going to jail either, but intelligent people don't do it because it isn't worth the risk. Starting to catch on yet?

"If every relationship you've had with women has ended badly, you might want to wonder why."

There is a 50% dovorce rate in this country and you might want to wonder why.

Ths argument of 'only having yourself to blame if all your relationships go sour' was still relevant up until as recently as the 90's, but today with the legal system, societal trends & women's complete accountability and monsterous sense of entitlement, it doesn't matter if, as a man, you are well adjusted or not. Example: You cheat on her, she gets everything. She cheats on you, she gets everything.

In addition, women today will divorce you and take your kids and house simply because they "just don't feel that magic anymore," with the court system to enforce it. You need to start realizing the hopeless, one way, dead end street factor of marriage for men today.

"Wow, reality2008 you are showing yourself to be a bit of a horse’s ass, is that intentional?"

This isn't a single's site & I'm not looking for a date. I'm more interested in the truth.

"You say that you “never met a woman in 45 years that was accountable for her actions”. Never met one single unwed mother raising a child alone?"

What does that have to do with being accountable? I work with single mothers and they are the worst- the most unaccountable, most irresponsible women of all - that's how they ended up that way. They kicked out the father so they can have revolving guys on the couch. They tell me about their sex lives all the time.

"Never met one single person of the female persuasion that said “I am wrong and I am sorry”? Really?"

Go back and read the phrase. Misquoting me is pointless. The phrase is, "I was wrong and I take full responsibility and I will change."

Yes, really. I have never met a woman who has ever said this and you haven't either.

Though I'm sure Dr. Helen is quite flattered by your comparisons, I think even she will agree that she is not in the same league with Stephen Hawking.

Ok. We get it. You are angry. You certainly have a right to be angry - this system really screws over some men.

But your rage is overpowering your message. People can't hear what you have to say because you blast them with it. You are getting in your own way.

There are other places you can go to express that rage without attacking someone directly and where it will be understood. You know what I mean.

There is no reason to go attacking Dr. Helen. She is one of the few good ones. She has given men more latitude to express themselves than most other forums on the net and sure as hell more than the Lame Stream Has-Been media. Don't be an ass.

Things are turning around. More and more men are speaking out and women's games to try to silence them are failing now that men have caught on to them.

I and a lot of other men have been working at getting this kind of leverage for men to make themselves heard for a long time. Don't blow it for a lot of other men just because you're so pissed off and want to lash out at someone.

Dr. Helen has done nothing to you, and neither has any other person on this blog. If you are about punishing the innocent, you probably need to rethink that.

reality2008 said... What does that have to do with being accountable? I work with single mothers and they are the worst- the most unaccountable, most irresponsible women of all - that's how they ended up that way. They kicked out the father so they can have revolving guys on the couch. They tell me about their sex lives all the time.

It seems to me at least that your judgment is colored by your own past experiences and the experiences of those you council. I have met women that have taken responsibility for their lives and choices. I know a single mother or two who are raising their families on their own, and not wanting or asking for handouts from anyone. I also know one or two women just as you describe. One or two men as well. Despite what you may think or feel, women do not own being unaccountable and men don’t own self reliance.

The phrase is, "I was wrong and I take full responsibility and I will change." Yes, really. I have never met a woman who has ever said this and you haven't either.

Sorry to disappoint you but not only do I know a woman like that but I was smart enough and lucky enough to marry her. She and I are both flawed people that try to improve ourselves every day. We don’t always (hell usually) succeed but we continue to try. That is life. No one is perfect, not even you. You seem to be holding women up to an impossible standard and then sing in self righteousness when they show you how human they are. Fantastic, you are right again. Congratulations. You say you are happy but you come across as sounding so bitter. Happy people don’t attack and don’t feel the need to test. You are who you are though. You seem to have had the misfortune to be involved with women that left you disappointed and disgruntled, find we get that. As a therapist, you more than anyone should know that, that’s life. Deal with it and move on with living. Instead you seem to be stuck on anger. You test potential partners to the point of failure so that you have an excuse to move on with “good reason”. As Dr. Phil would say “how’s that working for you” and you I am sure will reply “just fine thank you” but your words and tone say otherwise. Try discussing this with your therapist.

I suppose the bottom line is just a no brainer. When two people find each other, and realize they are right for each other, a marriage can be the best of all worlds. The two need to come together and be of and for each other, leaving everything else behind. Especially the attitudes and opinions of others who are not quite so lucky, and don't want you to be either.Misery loves company. Quite simple, quite true.

And if it doesn't work out, people have to be bright enough to see that, cut their losses, divide the proceeds, and part ways. Friends come and go, enemies can accumulate.

I admit it took me far too long to see the kids and I were much better off cutting those losses. The losses were much greater and longer lasting because of that. It took far too long to realize (admit) there was simply nothing I could do to "save our marriage". Trying to save the marriage at all costs ended up costing all. Thank God I couldn't do it. I can't imagine being with her now, nor can I understand what I saw in the first place. And I am speaking of one relationship, between two people. No more, no further than that.

I know very few people who are blissfully married. But I am very happy for those who are. When you see them out and about they are almost in their own world. As time goes on, and they may need to stretch , hopefully they both will recognize and encourage it in each other. Some guys need hobbies or activities outside holding hands with the spouse or participating in sports sex. Some women, too.Maybe it really does take two to tango. Dancing through life ain't a bad way to do it.

I'm a single man in my 20s and maybe it's because I'm not very social, but about the only people who bug me to get married are family members and especially my grandpa. I would like to get married, but it just hasn't happened yet.